[tim-tday]

I was hoping to se a discussion of the historical aversion to attacking leaders directly. I’ve always heard that it sets a dangerous precedent of tit for tat and state sponsored assassination. I’m not sure it’s worse than millions of innocent soldiers on both sides being killed. I’d be interested to hear a thoughtful discussion of both sides of the argument.

[nacozarina]

In immediate terms, top assassinations prolong modern conflicts. It creates uncertainty around who can make commitments and disrupts comms. It also tends to result in more combative leadership not conciliatory.

As a side note, this Iran attack is an enormous slap to Putin, especially on the heels of the Venezuela/Maduro kidnapping. With the earlier loss of Syria, Putin is seeing the obliteration of Russia’s overseas interests.